Perceptions and expectations of autonomous vehicles – A snapshot of vulnerable road user opinion

Abstract

Public perceptions play a crucial role in wider adoption of autonomous vehicles (AVs). This paper aims to make two contributions to the understanding of public attitudes toward AVs. First, we explore opinions regarding the perceived benefits and challenges of AVs among vulnerable road users – in particular, pedestrians and bicyclists. Second, the paper evaluated whether interaction experiences with AVs influence perceptions among vulnerable road users. To explore this, we examined survey data collected by Bike PGH, a Pittsburgh based organization involved in programs to promote safe mobility options for road users. Analysis of the data revealed that respondents with direct experience interacting with AVs reported significantly higher expectations of the safety benefits of the transition to AVs than respondents with no AV interaction experience. This finding did not differ across pedestrian and bicyclist respondents. The results of this study indicate that as the public increasingly interacts with AVs, their attitudes toward the technology are more likely to be positive. Thus, this study recommends that policy makers should provide the opportunities for the public to have interaction experience with AVs. The opportunities can be provided through legislation that allows auto manufacturers and technology industries to operate and test AVs on public roads. This interactive experience will positively affect people's perceptions and help in wider adoption of AV technology.

Full text

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Technological Forecasting & Social Change
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techfore
Perceptions and expectations of autonomous vehicles –A snapshot of
vulnerable road user opinion
Praveena Penmetsa
a,⁎
, Emmanuel KofiAdanu
a
, Dustin Wood
a
, Teng Wang
b
, Steven L. Jones
c
a
Alabama Transportation Institute, The University of Alabama, Cyber Hall, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, United States of America
b
Texas A&M Transportation Institute, 1100 NW Loop 410, Suite 400, San Antonio, TX 78213, United States of America
c
Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering, The University of Alabama, Cyber Hall, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, United States of America
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Autonomous vehicles
Vulnerable road users
Perception
Pedestrians
Safety
Bicyclist
ABSTRACT
Public perceptions play a crucial role in wider adoption of autonomous vehicles (AVs). This paper aims to make
two contributions to the understanding of public attitudes toward AVs. First, we explore opinions regarding the
perceived benefits and challenges of AVs among vulnerable road users –in particular, pedestrians and bicyclists.
Second, the paper evaluated whether interaction experiences with AVs influence perceptions among vulnerable
road users. To explore this, we examined survey data collected by Bike PGH, a Pittsburgh based organization
involved in programs to promote safe mobility options for road users. Analysis of the data revealed that re-
spondents with direct experience interacting with AVs reported significantly higher expectations of the safety
benefits of the transition to AVs than respondents with no AV interaction experience. This finding did not differ
across pedestrian and bicyclist respondents. The results of this study indicate that as the public increasingly
interacts with AVs, their attitudes toward the technology are more likely to be positive. Thus, this study re-
commends that policy makers should provide the opportunities for the public to have interaction experience
with AVs. The opportunities can be provided through legislation that allows auto manufacturers and technology
industries to operate and test AVs on public roads. This interactive experience will positively affect people's
perceptions and help in wider adoption of AV technology.
1. Introduction
Autonomous vehicles (AVs) are capable of sensing their environ-
ments and navigating different traffic conditions with little or no
human input (Skeete, 2018). By reducing the input of a human op-
erator, AVs have the potential to reduce traffic congestion while im-
proving fuel efficiency, reducing air pollution, and mitigating climate
change (Forrest and Konca, 2007.; Tientrakool et al., 2011;Atiyeh,
2012.; Shladover et al., 2012.; Plumer, 2017.; LaFrance, 2018). Re-
search findings reveal that human factors are responsible for more than
90% of all crashes involving automobiles (Automated Driving Systems,
2017). Many industry experts believe that the transition to AVs will
significantly improve road safety (Forrest and Konca, 2007;Plumer,
2017;Fagnant and Kockelman, 2018;Reimer, 2014;Hayes, 2011;
Silberg et al., 2012).
On March 18, 2018, however, an Uber struck and killed a pedestrian
in Arizona. This crash garnered worldwide media attention as the ve-
hicle was operating with a self-driving system at the time of the
collision. Questions related to the safety performance and acceptance of
these technologies (autonomous vehicle, self-driving) immediately
surfaced –especially in relation to their ability to interact with vul-
nerable road users, a term generally used to refer to pedestrians, bi-
cyclists, and motorcyclists (Barth, 2017;Fairley, 2018;Levin, 2018).
We present a study of safety perceptions of AVs among vulnerable road
users and report how they relate to exposure to the technology.
2. Background
Recent advances in AV technology by automotive companies (e.g.,
General Motors, Ford, Daimler, Renault-Nissan) and tech companies
(e.g., Google, Uber, Waymo) have accelerated the development, testing,
and deployment of AVs within a much shorter time than previously
anticipated (Muoio, 2018). Researchers, private organizations, and in-
dustry experts have made efforts in predicting the adoption rates of AVs
(Bansal and Kockelman, 2017;Hars, 2018;Laslau et al., 2014;Lavasani
et al., 2016;Levinson and Krizek, 2015;Litman, 2018;Mosquet et al.,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.02.010
Received 18 October 2018; Received in revised form 4 February 2019; Accepted 26 February 2019
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ppenmetsa@ua.edu (P. Penmetsa), ekadanu@ua.edu (E.K. Adanu), dustin.wood@cba.ua.edu (D. Wood), Teng-Wang@tti.tamu.edu (T. Wang),
sjones@eng.ua.edu (S.L. Jones).
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 143 (2019) 9–13
0040-1625/ © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY/4.0/).
T

2015;Rowe, 2018;Silberg et al., 2012). Several factors such as reg-
ulations, willingness to pay, and technology prices play a crucial role in
wide adoption of AVs (Hohenberger et al., 2016;Payre et al., 2014).
Many researchers have also explored the role of public perceptions and
acceptance in greater adoption of AVs (Fagnant and Kockelman, 2018;
Fairley, 2018;Litman, 2018;Hohenberger et al., 2017;Bansal and
Kockelman, 2017;Lavasani et al., 2016;Gold et al., 2015;Heide and
Henning, 2006). This logically follows from the fact that the public will
ultimately play a crucial role in purchasing vehicles with AV-related
technology and supporting (or opposing) policies and electing politi-
cians that will make it easier for AVs to share the roadways with other
users.
Understanding public perceptions of AVs is thus a crucial compo-
nent of knowing the rate at which the technology will become im-
plemented (Hengstler et al., 2016) For instance, Casley et al. (2013)
designed a survey to assess public feelings, beliefs, expectations, and
predictions toward AVs. Secondary traits of AVs such as their expected
productivity, efficiency, environmental impact were appealing to the
public. A survey conducted by Schoettle and Sivak (2014) found that
respondents in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia (a)
have positive initial opinion of this technology, (b) have high ex-
pectations on benefits derived from AVs, (c) express concern about
riding in AVs, and security issues related to AVs, and (d) desire to have
self-driving technology in their vehicle without paying extra. Similar
results regarding the acceptance, concerns, and willingness to pay for
AVs were reported in a study of over 5000 respondents from 109
countries conducted by Kyriakidis et al. (2015) (Kyriakidis et al., 2015).
A series of focus-group meetings conducted with people from Los An-
geles, Chicago, and Iselin by KPMG (2013) found public acceptance of
AVs to vary by geographic location and gender. Females are more in-
terested in AV technologies than males, with females emphasizing
perceived benefits of self-driving vehicles, and males expressing con-
cerns about being restricted by speed limits. This contradicts the results
form Hulse et al. (2018) - males displayed greater acceptance to AV
technology. Interestingly, this study found that the oldest respondents
(60+ year-old) and the youngest (21–34 year-olds) expressed the
highest willingness to pay for self-driving technologies. According to a
research by Howard and Dai (2014), survey respondents viewed safety
and convenience as the most attractive features of AVs whereas, liabi-
lity and cost were the least attractive elements (Howard and Dai, 2014).
In a study of over 3500 London residents, Begg (2014) found 60% of
respondents agreed or strongly agreed that AVs would improve safety
for road users. Payre et al. (2014) observed that older people were more
likely to accept AVs but less likely to pay for this technology.
Underwood (2014) conducted a survey at Automated Vehicle Sympo-
sium 2014 and gathered opinions of 217 AV experts. The AV experts
believed that social and consumer acceptance were the least difficult
barriers while liability and regulations were the most difficult barriers
to the adoption of AVs. Finally, Deb et al. (2017) found in a study that
67% of respondents expected AVs to improve the overall transportation
system, but over 40% stated they will not feel comfortable if their child,
spouse, parents, or their loved ones cross roads in the presence of AVs.
Males, younger respondents, and respondents from urban areas were
more receptive toward AVs.
A review of existing literature reveals some interesting limitations in
the current understanding of public perception and acceptability of
AVs:
•Presently, encounters with AVs on the roadways represent largely a
hypothetical future for most people. Therefore, their indications of
acceptability and/or expectations may not be solid ground for future
adoption of AVs, given that an individual's beliefs about how they
will feel about future events can be highly inaccurate (Wilson and
Gilbert, 2005). Indeed, Sims et al. (2018) have shown that having a
prior experience with a travel mode can lead to a more accurate
prediction about it (Sims et al., 2018).
•Only few respondents to past surveys regarding attitudes and beliefs
related to AVs involve people who have directly interacted with
AVs. Given this lack of experience or interactions with AVs, most
respondents only have a vague idea about how they will actually
value these technologies when they arrive, which can lead to both
seriously overestimating or underestimating their value (Vilimek
and Keinath, 2014).
•Further, the past surveys have largely ignored the assessment of
attitudes and beliefs of vulnerable road users (non-motorists).
To overcome the limitations of the existing literature, this paper
aims to: 1) explore opinions regarding the perceived benefits and
challenges of AVs among vulnerable road users (i.e., pedestrians and
bicyclists); and 2) evaluate whether interaction with AVs changes
perceptions among vulnerable road users. Finally, we provide insights
to aid policy makers for better public acceptance and wider adoption of
AV technology. The study analyzes data obtained from a third-party
organization, Bike PGH. Bike PGH conducted a survey and gathered
responses from Pittsburgh residents on their experiences, perceptions,
and level of support to AVs deployed in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
3. Methodology
In 2017, United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) de-
signated ten AV proving grounds to encourage testing of new technol-
ogies, which included Pittsburgh, PA. Since September 2016, Uber's
self-driving cars have been tested on the streets of Pittsburgh by pro-
viding rides for the public. By March 2017, there were 20 Uber AVs in
Pittsburgh serving over 800 trips per week (Bhuiyan, 2018).
Bike PGH, an organization promoting safety and accessibility for
bikers and pedestrians, conducted a survey to better understand the
attitudes and beliefs of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania residents regarding
sharing roads with AVs. Bike PGH conducted the survey in two stages:
a) first, exclusively to the donor members of the Bike PGH group, and b)
second, a general public survey. The general public survey aimed at
gathering responses from the Pittsburgh residents. Bike PGH promoted
the survey through their website, social media, and news articles. The
data was then provided to Western Pennsylvania Regional Data Center
and made public.
4. Results
Bike PGH gathered 321 responses from their members and 798 re-
sponses from general public. Initial results of the data were presented
by Bike PGH (AV Survey Results, 2018). However, most of their ana-
lysis concentrated on comparisons of responses between Bike PGH
members and general public. Their results clearly showed that Bike
PGH members have more positive attitudes and beliefs regarding AVs
than the general public. Because our interests were to examine a more
representative sample, in the present study analyses were limited to the
798 responses from survey of the general public (only 384 were needed
for 95% a confidence level). Descriptive statistics of the original survey
data are summarized in Table 1.
Among the survey respondents, 46% stated that they had interacted
with an AV while using sidewalks and crosswalks, and 43% have not
had any interactions with an AV as a pedestrian. Among the re-
spondents, 11% were not sure if they had interactions with AVs as
pedestrians. Thirty-five percent of the respondents reported having
interacted with AVs while riding a bicycle. A reasonable number of
respondents had interactions/experiences with AVs, which is necessary
for the kind of comparisons made in this study.
Approximately half of the respondents (49%) fully approved of
Pittsburgh serving as a proving ground for AVs. Only 10% of the re-
spondents fully disapproved, and 13% reported neutral attitudes.
Combing both approve and somewhat approve, close to 70% of the
people approved of their city serving as a proving ground for this
P. Penmetsa, et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 143 (2019) 9–13
10

technology.
Respondents expressed their observations or circumstances during
their interaction with AV. Since the data was freely provided on the
public domain, the data providers converted the descriptive variable
into 5 level categorical variable. Among the respondents who had in-
teraction experience with AVs, 70% stated that they didn't find any
difference between a human driver or experienced no negative inter-
action with an AV. Around 12% of the respondents who had interac-
tions, experienced AVs more cautious or had difficulty anticipating AV
movement. Only 6% of the respondents perceived AVs as being safer
than humans.
Among the respondents, 62% reported that AVs have the potential
to reduce both fatalities and injuries. Only 8% of the respondents
clearly stated no and another 30% reported ‘Maybe’or ‘Not Sure’
(Table 1). Of the survey respondents, 70% felt that authorities should
lay regulations regarding how AVs are tested.
Regarding beliefs about the safety of sharing roads with human
drivers as pedestrians or bicyclists, the respondents' responses were
diverse; 4% of the respondents rated Pittsburgh streets as very safe,
39% stated moderately safe, and only 6% felt their city roads very
unsafe. Among the respondents, 21% rated Pittsburgh streets very safe,
and 36% stated safe. Interestingly, respondents rated sharing roads with
humans (mean = 2.95 on the scale given in Table 1) as less safe than
sharing the roads with AVs (mean = 3.53). Table 2 displays public's
opinions on how safe they feel using Pittsburgh's streets with human
drivers and AVs.
Respondents had more positive beliefs regarding the safety of
sharing the road with AVs if they had past interactions with AVs
(M= 3.70) than if they had not (M= 3.35). This difference was sta-
tistically significant (p= 0.0003). In contrast, respondents shared si-
milar attitudes about the safety of sharing roads with human drivers
regardless of whether they had experience interacting with AVs
(M= 2.92) or had not (M= 3.00). This difference was not statistically
significant (p= 0.23). This discrepancy is important as it indicates that
exposure to AVs was associated specifically with differences in the
perceived safety of AVs but did not systematically affect the perceived
safety of human drivers. Respondents with interactive experience have
significantly high expectations than respondents without interactions
with AVs. In general, public expectations were high on safety benefits
from AVs. This observation is similar to previous findings of Schoettle
and Sivak (2014),Casley et al. (2013), and Deb et al. (2017).
Table 3displays vulnerable road users' opinion on Pittsburgh as the
proving ground for AVs by their interactive experience with AV. Since
the responses are ordinal (1-disapprove, 2-somewhat disapprove, 3-
neutral, 4-somewhat approve, 5-approve).
The mean reported approval of Pittsburgh as an AV proving ground
was 4.10 for respondents who had interacted with AVs as pedestrians,
whereas approval was only 3.67 for respondents with no interaction
experience as pedestrians; a one-way ANOVA indicated this difference
was statistically significant at a 95% confidence level (p= 0.0002).
Similarly, respondents reported more positive attitudes toward AVs if
they had interacted with AVs as bicyclists (M= 4.06) than if they had
not (M= 3.78); this difference was again significantly different
(p= 0.02). These results indicate that interacting with AVs as a vul-
nerable road user was associated with increasing acceptance of this
technology.
Table 4 provides the mean perceptions of respondents concerning
on potential safety benefits with AVs.
Among pedestrians who had interactive experience, 67% stated that
AVs have great potential to reduce traffic fatalities and injuries. Only
6% of the same group felt AVs can't improve safety on roads. As tested
Table 1
Descriptive statistics of the data.
Question Response Frequency
Have you interacted with an AV while using
sidewalks and crosswalks in Pittsburgh?
No 344 (43%)
Not sure 84 (11%)
Yes 371 (46%)
Have you interacted with an AV while riding your
bicycle on the streets of Pittsburgh?
No 448 (56%)
Not sure 74 (9%)
Yes 277 (35%)
How do you feel right now about the use of
Pittsburgh's public streets as a proving ground
for AVs?
1 (approve) 390 (49%)
2 154 (19%)
3 107 (13%)
4 72 (9%)
5 (disapprove) 76 (10%)
On a typical day, how safe do you feel using
Pittsburgh's streets with human-driven cars?
1 (very unsafe) 43 (6%)
2 215 (27%)
3 308 (39%)
4 193 (24%)
5 (very safe) 34 (4%)
On a typical day, how safe do you feel using
Pittsburgh's streets with autonomous
vehicles?
1 (very unsafe) 50 (7%)
2 80 (11%)
3 177 (25%)
4 255 (36%)
5 (very safe) 153 (21%)
Do you think that AVs have the potential to reduce
injuries and fatalities?
Yes 493 (62%)
No 63 (8%)
Maybe 174 (22%)
Not sure 69 (8%)
On public streets, do you think that a regulatory
authority should come up with regulations
regarding how AVs are tested?
Yes 559 (70%)
No 103 (13%)
Not sure 137 (17%)
If you have had AV interactions, what were the
circumstances? What were your observations?
(a) 30 (6%)
(b) 383 (71%)
(c) 67 (12%)
(d) 37 (7%)
Other 22 (4%)
Note. ‘Response’column provides the response option presented to survey re-
spondents. (a) - AVs are safer than a human driver (b) - no difference between a
human driver or experienced no negative interaction with an AV; (c) - experi-
enced AV more cautious or slower than a human driver or that respondents had
difficulty anticipating movement of an AV; (d) - respondent reported having or
witnessing a negative interaction with an AV.
Table 2
Safety perception of Pittsburgh residents.
How safe do you feel
using Pittsburgh's
streets with
Interactive
experience with
AV
Response (1-very unsafe & 5-
very safe)
p-Value
Sample Mean Std.
dev.
Human drivers Yes 370 2.92 0.91 0.23
No 339 3.00 0.96
Not sure 84 2.82 1.00
AV Yes 364 3.70 1.10 0.0003
⁎
No 274 3.35 1.21
Not sure 77 3.38 1.04
⁎
Significant at 95% confidence level.
Table 3
Public opinion on Pittsburgh as the proving ground for AVs.
Vulnerable
road user
Interactive
experience
with AV
How do you feel right now about the use of
Pittsburgh's public streets as a proving ground for
AVs? (1-disapprove & 5-approve)
Sample Mean Std.
dev.
p-Value
Pedestrian Yes 371 4.10 1.30 0.0002
⁎
No 344 3.67 1.38
Not sure 84 3.83 1.36
Bicyclist Yes 277 4.06 1.33 0.02
⁎
No 448 3.78 1.36
Not sure 74 3.88 1.31
Note: p-value is obtained from ANOVA.
⁎
Significant at 95% confidence level.
P. Penmetsa, et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 143 (2019) 9–13
11

by the chi-square statistic, the interactive experience of pedestrians had
statistically significant effect on their perceptions about AVs safety
potential to reduce injuries and fatalities at 95% confidence level (p-
value is 0.037). Similarly, bicyclists who had interactive experience
were significantly more likely to perceive that AVs have great potential
to reduce traffic injuries and fatalities. Irrespective of the type of vul-
nerable road user, respondents described being more likely to envision
the safety benefits of AVs if they had past interactions with AVs.
The respondents of the survey also expressed their opinions on
imposing regulations for AV testing and Table 5 presents those results.
Respondents who have interacted with AVs as pedestrians, 65% of
them stated that authorities should lay regulations for AV testing,
whereas 76% of the pedestrians who haven't interacted said regulations
are necessary. The difference was statistically significant at 95% con-
fidence level. The same result was found among bicyclists.
Approximately 10% of the pedestrians and bicyclists who had not in-
teracted with AVs responded that regulations are not necessary,
whereas this percentage increased to 16%, and 18% among the pe-
destrians and bicyclists who had interacted with AVs.
5. Discussion & conclusion
Public perception plays a crucial role in the rate of new technology
acceptance and adoption by personals choices to adopt and willingness
to support government actions to support changes. Presently, the rate at
which AVs become a part of the transportation system is determined in
no small part by political decisions regarding how to regulate the
technology, support testing, and assess liability for accidents, and these
decisions in turn are considerably influenced by the attitudes of poli-
tical constituents. This paper investigated opinions of a specific subset
of stakeholders, vulnerable road users, on the benefits, experiences, and
perceived challenges with AVs. This paper further evaluated whether
interaction experiences with AVs could change perceptions among
vulnerable road users and also provide policy recommendations for
wider acceptance of this technology.
The results of this study provide some of the first evidence that
interactions with AVs of vulnerable road users increase perceptions of
safety and approval of this technology. This suggests that as the public
has increased opportunities to interact with AVs –even without con-
sidering further advances beyond current technologies –attitudes to-
ward the technology would be expected to improve.
Presently, there is considerable geographic variation in the extent to
which people may have such experiences, due to wide variation in the
regulations concerning the ability to operate AVs on public roads.
According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) by
January 2018, 23 states and District of Columbia have enacted some
form of legislation or executive orders on autonomous vehicles: seven
authorize testing; seven simply authorize a study or funding, or defined
terms; nine states and DC authorize full deployment (Automation and
Crash Avoidance, 2018).
Across the US, there are only a handful of places where AVs are
tested or operated on public roads. After the fatal pedestrian crash in-
volving Uber, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey issued an Executive Order
to suspend all the testing of Uber autonomous vehicles on public
roadways in Arizona (Schwartz, 2018). This crash attracted attention
from all over the country and raised more questions related to the safety
performance and acceptance of the AV technology. According to Groves
and Kalra (2017), even with the current concerns and obstacles sur-
rounding AVs, the testing and deploying of AVs on the public road
should be promoted before the AV technology is nearly perfect at the
SAE level 5. Early deployment of AVs would save many lives instead of
waiting until they become nearly perfect (Groves and Kalra, 2017;
Skeete, 2018).
In view of the findings of this study, it is recommended that, policy
makers should provide opportunities for the public to have interaction
experience with AVs. The opportunities can be provided through leg-
islation that allows auto manufacturers and technology industries to
operate and test AVs on public roads. This interactive experience will
positively affect people's perceptions and help in wider adoption of AV
technology.
The data used for this study was obtained from a study conducted by
Bike PGH, an organization that advocates for safer communities for
bikers and pedestrians. Given the sample collecting strategy through
social media, the sample might over-represent bicycle-users relative to
the total Pittsburgh population. The results of the study still provide
important evidence that experiences with AVs are associated with
systematic differences in how AVs are perceived.
Funding source
This research was conducted using internal funds from the Alabama
Transportation Institute at the University of Alabama.
References
Atiyeh, C., 2012. Predicting Traffic Patterns, One Honda at a Time. In: MSN Auto, (June).
Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety. Publication DOT HS 812 442.
USDOT, United States Department of Transportation.
Bansal, P., Kockelman, K.M., 2017. Forecasting Americans' long-term adoption of con-
nected and autonomous vehicle technologies. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 2017 (95),
49–63.
Barth, S. Video: Nissan driverless car in cyclist close pass. Road.cc., March 2017. http://
road.cc/content/news/218523-video-nissan-driverless-car-cyclist-close-pass.
Accessed July 17, 2018.
Begg, D., 2014. A 2050 Vision for London: What Are the Implications of Driverless
Transport? Clear Channel. .
Bhuiyan, J. Uber's autonomous cars drove 20,354 miles and had to be taken over at every
mile, according to documents. Recodewww.recode.net/2017/3/16/14938116/uber-
travis-kalanick-self-driving-internal-metrics-slow-progress, Accessed date: 4 January
2018.
AV survey results. Bike PGH, Pittsburghwww.bikepgh.org/resources/save/survey/,
Accessed date: 23 January 2018.
Casley, S., A. Jardim, A. Quartulli. A Study of Public Acceptance of Autonomous Cars.
Bachelor of Science thesis. Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, USA,
2013.
Deb, S., Strawderman, L., Carruth, D.W., DuBien, J., Smith, B., Garriso, T.M., 2017.
Development and validation of a questionnaire to assess pedestrian receptivity
Table 4
AVs potential to improve safety.
Vulnerable
road user
Interactive
experience
with AV
Do you think that AVs have the
potential to reduce injuries and
fatalities?
p-Value
Yes No Maybe Not
sure
Pedestrian Yes 67% 6% 19% 8% 0.037
⁎
No 58% 10% 22% 10%
Not sure 52% 7% 33% 7%
Bicyclist Yes 70% 6% 17% 6% 0.006
⁎
No 58% 9% 23% 10%
Not sure 53% 9% 31% 7%
⁎
Statistical significance at 95% confidence level.
Table 5
Public's opinion on imposing regulation for AV testing.
Vulnerable road
user
Interactive
experience with
AV
Should authorities come up
regulations for AV testing
p-Value
Yes No Not sure
Pedestrian Yes 65% 16% 19% 0.007
⁎
No 76% 10% 14%
Not sure 68% 12% 20%
Bicyclist Yes 63% 18% 19% 0.034
⁎
No 75% 9% 16%
Not sure 68% 15% 18%
⁎
Significant at 95% confidence level.
P. Penmetsa, et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 143 (2019) 9–13
12

toward fully autonomous vehicles. Transportation research part C: emerging tech-
nologies 84, 178–195.
Fagnant, D.J., Kockelman, K.M., 2018. Dynamic ride-sharing and fleet sizing for a system
of shared autonomous vehicles in Austin, Texas. Transportation 45 (1), 143–158.
Fairley, P. The self-driving car's bicycle problem. IEEE Spectrumhttps://spectrum.ieee.
org/cars-that-think/transportation/self-driving/the-selfdriving-cars-bicycle-problem,
Accessed date: 17 July 2018.
Forrest, A., M. Konca. Autonomous Car & Society In. Worcester Polytechnic Institute,
Worcester, MA, 2007. vol. IQP OVP 06B1.
Gold, C., Körber, M., Hohenberger, C., Bengler, K., 2015. Trust in automation –before and
after the experience of take-over scenarios in a highly automated vehicle. Procedia
Manufacturing 3, 3025–3032.
Groves, David G., Kalra, Nidhi, 2017. Enemy of Good: Autonomous Vehicle Safety
Scenario Explorer. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA. https://www.rand.org/
pubs/tools/TL279.html.
Hars, A. Autonomous vehicle roadmap: 2015–2030. Driverless car market watch. www.
driverless-future.com/?p=678, Accessed date: 4 January 2018.
Hayes, B., 2011. Leave the driving to it. Am. Sci. 99 (5), 362.
Heide, A., Henning, K., 2006. The “cognitive car”: a roadmap for research issues in the
automotive sector. Annu. Rev. Control. 30 (2), 197–203.
Hengstler, M., Enkel, E., Duelli, S., 2016. Applied artificial intelligence and trust –the
case of autonomous vehicles and medical devices. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.
105, 105–120.
Hohenberger, C., Spörrle, M., Welpe, I., 2016. How and why do men and women differ in
their willingness to use automated cars? The influence of emotions across different
age groups. Transp. Res. A 94, 374–385.
Hohenberger, C., Spörrle, M., Welpe, I., 2017. Not fearless, but self-enhanced: the effects
of anxiety on the willingness to use autonomous cars depend on individual levels of
self-enhancement. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 116, 40–52.
Howard, D. and D. Dai. Public Perceptions of Self-driving Cars: The Case of Berkeley,
California. Presented at 93rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research,
Washington, D.C., 2014.
Hulse, L.M., Xie, H., Galea, E.R., 2018. Perceptions of autonomous vehicles: relationships
with road users, risk, gender and age. Saf. Sci. 102, 1–13.
Automation and crash avoidance. Insurance Institute for Highway Safetywww.iihs.org/
iihs/topics/laws/autonomous-vehicles?topicName=Automation%20and%20crash
%20avoidance, Accessed date: 16 January 2018.
Kyriakidis, M., Happee, R., de Winter, J.C., 2015. Public opinion on automated driving:
results of an international questionnaire among 5000 respondents. Transportation
Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior 32, 127–140.
LaFrance, A. Self-driving cars could save 300,000 lives per decade in America. The
Atlantichttps://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/09/self-driving-
cars-could-save-300000-lives-per-decade-in-america/407956/,Accessed date: 17
July 2018.
Laslau, C., Holman, M., Saenko, M., See, K., Zhang, Z., 2014. Set Autopilot for Profits:
Capitalizing on the $87 Billion Self-driving Car Opportunity. Lux Research. .
Lavasani, M., Jin, X., Du, Y., 2016. Market Penetration Model for Autonomous Vehicles
Based on Previous Technology Adoption Experiences. Presented at 95th Annual
Meeting of the Transportation Research. D.C., Washington.
Levin, S. Uber admits to self-driving car ‘problem’in bike lanes as safety concerns mount.
The Guardian UShttps://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/19/uber-self-
driving-cars-bike-lanes-safety-san-francisco, Accessed date: 17 July 2018.
Levinson, D., Krizek, K., 2015. The End of Traffic and the Future of Transport. Network
Design Lab. In: Kindle Editions.
Litman, T., 2018. Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions: Implications for
Transport Planning. Victoria Transport Policy Institute 28.
Mosquet, X., Dauner, T., Lang, N., Rubmann, N., Mei-Pochtler, A., Agrawal, R., Schmieg,
F., 2015. Revolution in the Driver's Seat: The Road to Autonomous Vehicles. Boston
Consulting Group 11.
Muoio, D. Ranked: the 18 companies most likely to get self-driving cars on the road first.
Business Insiderwww.businessinsider.com/the-companies-most-likely-to-get-
driverless-cars-on-the-road-first-2017-4/, Accessed date: 4 January 2018.
Payre, W., Cestac, J., Delhomme, P., 2014. Intention to use a fully automated car: atti-
tudes and a priori acceptability. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology
and Behavior 27, 252–263.
Plumer, B. 15 ways that self-driving cars could transform our lives. Voxwww.vox.com/
2014/5/28/5756736/the-case-for-self-driving-cars, Accessed date: 22 December
2017.
Reimer, B., 2014. Driver assistance systems and the transition to automated vehicles: a
path to increase older adult safety and mobility? Public Policy & Aging Report 24 (1),
27–31.
Rowe, R. Self-driving cars, timeline. Topspeedwww.topspeed.com/cars/car-news/self-
driving-cars-timeline-ar169802.html, Accessed date: 4 January 2018.
Schoettle, B., Sivak, M., 2014. A Survey of Public Opinion about Autonomous and Self-
driving Vehicles in the US, the UK, and Australia. University of Michigan
Transportation Research Institute.
Schwartz, D. Arizona governor suspends Uber's ability to test self-driving cars.
Reutershttps://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-selfdriving-uber/arizona-
governor-suspends-ubers-ability-to-test-self-driving-cars-idUSKBN1H303K, Accessed
date: 17 July 2018.
Self-driving Cars: Are We Ready. KPMG.
Shladover, S., Su, D., Lu, X.Y., 2012. Impacts of cooperative adaptive cruise control on
freeway trafficflow. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board 2324, 63–70.
Silberg, G., R. Wallace, G. Matuszak, J. Plessers, C. Brower and D. Subramanian. Self-
driving cars: the next revolution. White Paper, KPMG LLP & Center of Automotive
Research, 2012. 36.
Sims, D., Matthews, S.A., Bopp, M.J., Rovniak, L.S., Poole, E., 2018. Predicting dis-
cordance between perceived and estimated walk and bike times among university
faculty, staff, and students. Transportmetrica A: Transport Science 1, 28.
Skeete, J., 2018. Level 5 autonomy: the new face of disruption in road transport.
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 134, 22–34 (September).
Tientrakool, P., Y.C. Ho, and N.F. Maxemchuk. Highway capacity benefits from using
vehicle-to-vehicle communication and sensors for collision avoidance. 2011 IEEE
Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC Fall), San Francisco, CA, 2011, pp. 1–5.doi:
https://doi.org/10.1109/VETECF.2011.6093130.
Underwood, S., 2014. Automated vehicles forecast vehicle symposium opinion survey.
Automated Vehicles Symposium 15–17.
Vilimek, R. and A. Keinath. User-centred design and evaluation as a prerequisite for the
success of disruptive innovations: an electric vehicle case study. In Driver Acceptance
of New Technology: Theory, Measurement and Optimisation (M. Regan, T. Horberry,
A. Stevens, eds.), Ashgate, Farnham, 2014, pp. 169–186.
Wilson, T.D., Gilbert, D.T., 2005. Affective forecasting: knowing what to want. Curr. Dir.
Psychol. Sci. 14, 131–134.
Praveena Penmetsa is an Associate Research Engineer at University of Alabama's
Alabama Transportation Institute. Before joining UA, she worked for a year as a safety
research analyst at General Motors. She has extensive experience conducting research on
traffic safety, driver behavior, road users' perceptions, etc. She has authored and co-au-
thored close to 20 scholarly journal publications and has presented her work at several
national and international conferences.
Emmanuel KofiAdanu is a postdoctoral research associate at the Alabama
Transportation Institute (ATI). He has conducted extensive analysis of road safety data in
Alabama, as well as for Namibia and Ghana. He is passionate about identifying ways to
address various forms of disparities in transport. He has published in top transportation
safety journals and has been involved in both federal and state Department of
Transportation (DOT) funded projects. Dr. Adanu recently won the 2018 best dissertation
award by the Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering.
Dustin Wood received his PhD from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in
Social, Personality, and Organizational Psychology. His research has focused on topics
related to personality measurement, personality change, person-environment fit, and the
development of functional models for understanding personality processes. His work is
published in Psychological Review, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Psychological Science, and Personality and Social Psychological Review, and edited
books, such as Handbook of Personality: Research and Theory, and Handbook of
Psychological Situations.
Teng Wang is an Assistant Research Scientist at the Texas A&M Transportation Institute
with a demonstrated history of working in the Civil Engineering. His professional and
research interests include Statistical Data Analysis, Transportation Safety and Planning,
Remote Sensing Applications, Railroad Engineering, Transportation Economics and
Policy, GIS, GPS and 3D applications with Connected Vehicle and Automated Vehicle. He
is a strong research professional with a PhD and Professional Engineer (PE) License in the
State of Kentucky focused on Civil Engineering (Transportation).
Steven L Jones has more than 20 years experience in transportation engineering and
planning. He has participated in projects in the United States, Europe, Africa, and Asia.
Jones has served as principal investigator on more than $10 million in externally-spon-
sored projects. He has authored or co-authored more than 150 journal articles, con-
ferences papers, design manuals, and project reports on a range of transportation topics.
He directs the Transportation and Human Development Lab at the University of Alabama.
Jones will spend 2019 in Namibia on a Fulbright Scholar Award.
P. Penmetsa, et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 143 (2019) 9–13
13